Chap 16 Benjamin Pp. 193-206-Libre

5/22/2018 Chap 16 Benjamin Pp. 193-206-Libre

1/17

An offprint from

Submerged Prehistory

Edited by

Jonathan BenjaminClive Bonsall

Catriona PickardAnders Fischer

Oxbow Books 2011ISBN 978-1-84217-418-0

is digital offprint belongs to the publishers, Oxbow Books, and it is their copyright.

is content may not be published on the World Wide Web until April 2014 (three years from publication),unless the site is a limited access intranet (password protected) and may not be re-published without permissIf you have queries about this please contact the editorial department ([email protected]).

Submerged Prehistorymay be purchased directly from http://www.oxbowbooks.com


2/17

Contents

e Editors .........................................................................................................................................................................vi

List of Contributors ...........................................................................................................................................................vii

Preface (e Editors) ............................................................................................................................................................xi

1. Erteblle Canoes and Paddles from the Submerged Habitation Site of Tybrind Vig, Denmark ...................................1

(Sren H. Andersen)

2. e Excavation of a Mesolithic Double Burial from Tybrind Vig, Denmark .............................................................15

(Otto Uldum)

3. Mesolithic Hunter-Fishers in a Changing World: a case study of submerged sites on the Jckelberg,

Wismar Bay, northeastern Germany ..........................................................................................................................21 (Harald Lbke, Ulrich Schmlcke and Franz Tauber)

4. e Unappreciated Cultural Landscape: indications of submerged Mesolithic settlement

along the Norwegian southern coast ..........................................................................................................................38

(Pl Nymoen and Birgitte Skar)

5. How Wet Can It Get? approaches to submerged prehistoric sites and landscapes on the Dutch

continental shelf .........................................................................................................................................................55

(Hans Peeters)

6. Seabed Prehistory: investigating palaeolandsurfaces with Palaeolithic remains from the southern North Sea .............65

(Louise Tizzard, Paul A. Baggaley and Antony J. Firth)

7. Experiencing Change on the Prehistoric Shores of Northsealand: an anthropological perspective

on Early Holocene sea-level rise .................................................................................................................................75

(Jim Leary)

8. Submerged Landscape Excavations in the Solent, Southern Britain: climate change and cultural development .........85

(Garry Momber)

9. Submarine Neolithic Stone Rows near Carnac (Morbihan), France: preliminary results from acoustic

and underwater survey ...............................................................................................................................................99

(Serge Cassen, Agns Baltzer, Andr Lorin, Jrme Fournier and Dominique Sellier)

10. e Middle Palaeolithic Underwater Site of La Mondre, Normandy, France .........................................................111

(Dominique Cliquet, Sylvie Coutard, Martine Clet, Jean Allix, Bernadette Tessier, Frank Lelong, Agns Baltzer,Yann Mear, Emmanuel Poizot, Patrick Auguste, Philippe Alix, Jean Olive and Jo Guesnon)

11. Investigating Submerged Archaeological Landscapes: a research strategy illustrated with case studies

from Ireland and Newfoundland, Canada................................................................................................................129

(Kieran Westley, Trevor Bell, Ruth Plets and Rory Quinn)


3/17

12. Submerged Prehistory in the Americas .....................................................................................................................1

(Michael K. Faught and Amy E. Gusick)

13. Underwater Investigations in Northwest Russia: lacustrine archaeology of Neolithic pile dwellings ........................1

(Andrey Mazurkevich and Ekaterina Dolbunova)

14. A Late Neolithic Fishing Fence in Lake Arendsee, Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany .........................................................1 (Rosemarie Leineweber, Harald Lbke, Monika Hellmund, Hans-Jrgen Dhle and Stefanie Kloo)

15. A Palaeolithic Wooden Point from Ljubljansko Barje, Slovenia ...............................................................................1

(Andrej Gaspari, Miran Eri and Botjan Odar)

16. Investigating the Submerged Prehistory of the Eastern Adriatic: progress and prospects .........................................1

(Jonathan Benjamin, Luka Beki, Darko Komo, Ida Koncani Uha andClive Bonsall)

17. e Pavlopetri Underwater Archaeology Project: investigating an ancient submerged town ....................................2

(Jon C. Henderson, Chrysanthi Gallou, Nicholas C. Flemming and Elias Spondylis)

18. Submerged Sites and Drowned Topographies along the Anatolian Coasts: an overview ...........................................2 (Mehmet zdoan)

19. Palaeoecology of the Submerged Prehistoric Settlements in Sozopol Harbour, Bulgaria ...........................................2

(Mariana Filipova-Marinova, Liviu Giosan, Hristina Angelova, Anton Preisinger, Danail Pavlov and Stoyan Vergiev)

20. Was the Black Sea Catastrophically Flooded during the Holocene? geological evidence

and archaeological impacts .......................................................................................................................................2

(Valentina Yanko-Hombach, Peta Mudie and Allan S. Gilbert)

21. Underwater Investigations at the Early Sites of Aspros and Nissi Beach on Cyprus .................................................2

(Albert Ammerman, Duncan Howitt Marshall, Jonathan Benjamin and Tim Turnbull)

22. Submerged Neolithic Settlements off the Carmel Coast, Israel: cultural and environmental insights .......................2

(Ehud Galili and Baruch Rosen)

23. Research Infrastructure for Systematic Study of the Prehistoric Archaeology of the European Submerged

Continental Shelf .....................................................................................................................................................2

(Nicholas C. Flemming)

24. Stone Age on the Continental Shelf: an eroding resource ........................................................................................2

(Anders Fischer)

25. Continental Shelf Archaeology: where next? ............................................................................................................3

(Geoffrey N. Bailey)

26. Epilogue ...................................................................................................................................................................3 (Anders Fischer, Jonathan Benjamin, Catriona Pickard and Clive Bonsall)


4/17

16

Investigating the Submerged Prehistory of the

Eastern Adriatic: progress and prospectsJonathan Benjamin, Luka Beki, Darko Komo,

Ida Koncani Uha and Clive Bonsall

In this paper we assess the potential for the survival and investigation of submerged prehistoricsites and cultural landscapes in the eastern Adriatic. We review previous underwater prehistoric

finds from the region and evaluate their significance. Most of these finds were made inshallow water close inshore and likely date to the NeolithicEarly Bronze Age. We discuss thereasons for this pattern and for the concentration of finds along the Istrian and Dalmatiancoasts. e prospects for finding submerged sites belonging to earlier periods of prehistory arediscussed, with emphasis on the crucial period between 7000 and 5500 cal BC during whichfarming and herding supplanted hunting, fishing, and gathering as the dominant modes ofsubsistence. Against this background, we present a research design for a multidisciplinarystudy of submerged landscapes around one of the larger islands of the Zadar archipelago. Itis suggested that some important questions of the processes and timing of the transition tofarming around the Adriatic Basin may only be answered through the investigation of thecontinental shelf, and that such research can also contribute to a better understanding ofHolocene sea-level and coastal change.

Keywords:eastern Adriatic, sea-level rise, submerged cultural landscapes, MesolithicNeolithictransition

Introduction

Underwater archaeological investigations alongthe eastern Adriatic coast traditionally havefocused on Classical, maritime, and shipwreckarchaeology (cf. Jurii 2000; Radi Rossi et al.2008; Beki 2009a). However, the region has arich prehistory and studies of post-glacial sea-level change and shoreline displacement suggestthere is potential for the discovery of underwaterprehistoric sites dating back to the Early Holoceneor even the Late Pleistocene, at locations anddepths that are accessible to archaeologicaldivers. Since relative sea level along the easternAdriatic rim is higher today than at any stage of

prehistory, many low-lying coastal sites must havebeen transgressed. Dalmatia, in particular, withits varied coastal landscape comprising thousandsof islands, protected embayments, straits and,importantly, submarine caves, is a region of highpotential for underwater site discovery. In thispaper we review past research into the submergedprehistory of the eastern Adriatic Sea, reportingon some previously unpublished finds. We alsodiscuss the prospects for future research aimedat recovering new evidence from the seabed thatcould revolutionize our understanding of someof the key events in the prehistory of the region,such as the introduction and spread of farming.


5/17

Jonathan Benjamin, Luka Beki, Darko Komo, Ida Koncani Uha and Clive Bonsall194

Previous finds

At least eight submerged sites or localities withprehistoric artefacts have been reported along theeastern Adriatic coast between Piran in Sloveniaand Makarska in Croatia (Fig. 16.1).

Punta Pirane only well-documented prehistoric find fromthe Slovenian sector of the Adriatic Sea was asingle chert artefact recovered from the seabed

at 26 m depth in front of the headland of PuPiran (Fig. 16.1). It was found in 2005 duan underwater survey directed by JonatBenjamin (Benjamin 2007; Benjamin Bonsall 2009a). e artefact, described as a sm

bifacial dagger or fixed blade knife (Fig. 16compares closely in form and raw materianorthern Italian Chalcolithic and Bavarian FNeolithic examples, and probably originain the northeast Italian Pre-Alpine region. depth at which the artefact was found suggit was not in a primary context, or was lossea during its time of use (for discussion,Benjamin and Bonsall 2009b).

Zambratija Cove, SavudrijaIn September 2008, the Archaeological Musof Istria (Pula) began an underwater rescue pro

around the Bay of Zambratija in northwesIstria, not far from Savudrija (Fig. 16.1; KonUha 2009). While excavation of a shipwwas in progress along the southern shore ofbay (Fig. 16.3), a survey of the northern shwas conducted. It was here that wooden remwere observed (Fig. 16.4). In places the timprotruded from the sandy seabed sedimeforming a more-or-less circular pattern.

Figure 16.1: Locationsof underwater prehistoricfinds from the easternAdriatic. 1 Punta Piran,2 Zambratija Cove,3 Vetar Bay, 4 Cap Gale,5 Veruda Bay, 6 Oruda,7 Stipanac, 8 Baka Voda(SRTM digital elevationdata, after Jarvis et al.2008)

Figure 16.2: PuntaPiran, Slovenia. ebifacial dagger bladefound during underwatersurvey in 2005 (Photo: J.Benjamin)


6/17

19Investigating the Submerged Prehistory of the Eastern Adriatic

A 2 1 m test-pit was excavated where thewood remains were most densely concentrated.e seabed in this area is composed of sand andseagrass and the top of a round wooden postwas visible at an absolute depth of 2.36 m. Afterremoval of the seabed sediments with a hand-

held water dredge, a 5 cm thick layer of grey mudcontaining traces of burning was encountered;the top of the wooden post also exhibited signsof burning. Pottery sherds and animal bones werefound in this grey mud layer. Below the grey mudwas a 0.54 m thick layer of fine, compact, darkergrey mud with numerous sherds of prehistoricpottery and bones of cattle, small game, and fish.Within this layer four vertically placed posts,with two posts lying diagonally between them,were documented. Underneath the posts, at anabsolute depth of 3.09 m, horizontally alignedtimbers thought to be the remains of a house

floor were uncovered. Since the field researchwas time restricted, the excavation was suspendedat this point and the site protected with geotextilein accordance with standard archaeologicalpractice. e archaeological materials recoveredwere sent for specialist analyses, and samples ofbone and wood were taken for 14C dating. Underwater survey revealed a total of 34wooden posts over an area of approximately6500 m. The archaeological remains occurbetween 2.4 m and 3.1 m absolute depth.Preliminary analysis of the pottery suggests thesite belongs broadly to the time-range from the

Middle Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age. e discovery of the site at Zambratija raisesquestions about the human consequences of theHolocene marine transgression in the easternAdriatic. Was the transgression the primaryreason for the abandonment of the site? Was thesite built directly adjacent to the shore, or evenpartially (or entirely) above water? Or was thesite located some distance from the actual shore

during its occupation? Further investigationsat Zambratija Cove, and research into regionalsea-level change are needed if these questions areto be answered.

Vetar Bay

Vetar is a large bay with a flat, shallow bottomjust a few metres deep (Fig. 16.1). Previousunderwater finds from the bay include Roman,Medieval, and Post-Medieval artefacts, and theremains of a Roman stone-built breakwater(Beki 2001, 2009b), although prehistoric sitesare known from the surrounding area (Beki1996; Komo 2008). Underwater surveys directed by Luka Bekibetween 2000 and 2009 recovered five pieces ofchert from the seabed, from a zone extendingfor about a hundred metres along the southernshore of the bay. No prehistoric pottery was

found in this area, although local informantshave reported finding more chert including adistinctive red-brown variety (see below) on theadjacent beach. e chert pieces (Fig. 16.5) werefound at absolute depths of between 1.5 m and2.5 m; three were found directly on the seabed,and the other two in loose sediment just belowthe seafloor. e condition of some of the chertpieces and the contexts in which they occurredsuggest they were not in a primary position. A preliminary analysis (by Darko Komo)suggests that at least one of the chert pieces isan artefact (Fig. 16.5, 3). is is a fragment

of a bladelet with abrupt retouch along onelateral edge and traces of sickle gloss along theopposing edge. Similar finds are known fromNeolithic and Copper Age sites (Chalcolithic,also known as Eneolithic) in the region (cf.Codacci 2002; Komo 2004; Forenbaher andNikitovi 2007; Komo et al. 2009). None ofthe other four chert pieces shows clear signsof working. e largest piece (Fig. 16.5, 1) a

Figure 16.3: ZambratijCove. e submergedprehistoric site is locatedin the northern part ofthe bay (Photo:J. Benjamin)


7/17


Figure 16.4: Images ofthe prehistoric site inZambratija Cove andexamples of potteryfrom the grey mud layer(Photos: I. KoncaniUha)


8/17


fragment of a nodule with pale-brown chalkycortex exhibits a number of mechanicalfractures, although none of these is necessarilyman made. e material is dark red to brownin colour, and of high quality. No outcrops ofthis type of chert are known from Istria (cf.Pellegatti 2009), and it is almost certainly from

an exogenous source, most likely northern Italy(Scaglia Rossa or Scaglia Variegata). e secondlargest piece (not illustrated) is probably thesame type of chert, but is heavily burnt withthermal fracture scars. Unlike the first threepieces described, the remaining two (Fig. 16.5, 2,4) show signs of water abrasion suggesting longexposure to wave action. e larger of these is alsoprobably non-local chert, but from an unknownsource. Superficially it resembles a core fragment,although the degree of abrasion makes it diffi cultto tell if this is an artefact or an unworked nodulefractured by natural processes. e presence of three chert objects from(apparently) non-local sources raises the questionof how they reached Vetar Bay. Were theybrought there by prehistoric people, e.g. as rawmaterial, or were they ballast stones from shipsentering the bay?

Cape Gale near Peroj, IstriaIn 2004 a small-scale survey was conducted alongthe coast of Cape Gale near Peroj (Fig. 16.1).is led to the recovery of a large chipped stone

assemblage. Initially, material was collected onthe gravel beach. During subsequent surveys,however, it was observed that at low tidenumerous stone, pottery, and faunal remainscould be found on the seabed at depths of upto 50 cm. In spite of these observations, nounderwater survey has yet been undertaken, andthe extent of the submerged part of the site is stillunknown. A total of c. 500 chert and other stonetools were collected, among which are ground-edge tools, and numerous chipped stone toolsand debitage. ey include arrowheads, end-scrapers, piercers, and prismatic blades. Although

the pottery from the site is very eroded andfragmented, brushed decoration is still visibleon the surface of some sherds. e chipped stonetools and pottery can be dated typologically tothe period from the Late Neolithic to the EarlyBronze Age. e evidence points to the existenceat Cape Gale of at least a partially submergedprehistoric site.

Veruda Bay, PulaVeruda bay (Fig. 16.1) is a narrow inlet about2 km long, which separates the town of Pulafrom the southernmost part of Istria. e bayis generally less than 2 m deep and, beingsurrounded by hills, is relatively sheltered fromwinds from most directions. During the 1980sthe Marina Veruda was built in several phasesalong more or less the entire eastern shore ofthe bay. Construction of the marina requireddeepening of the harbour. Soft sediments dredgedup from the seabed over an area c. 250 100 min the inner part of the bay were deposited onland at the head of the bay. A diverse assemblageof prehistoric and Roman pottery sherds, stoneartefacts, and animal bones was later recoveredfrom this redeposited material, and presentedto the Archaeological Museum of Istria in Pula(Mihovili 1992). Among the lithics are twopolished axe-heads made from volcanic rocks(one complete, the other a proximal fragmentof a shaft-hole axe) and chipped stone artefactsmade from local (central Istrian) dark grey toblack chert, including side- and end-scrapers,piercers, backed tools, a bifacial leaf-shaped point

(interpreted as a spearhead or dagger blade), andlong prismatic blades. Although likely a mixedassemblage, the lithic artefacts were comparedto those from NeolithicEarly Bronze Age sitesin the northern Adriatic region by Mihovili(1992: 878), while Bernadini et al. (2009)attributed the shaft-hole axe more precisely tothe Copper Age.

Figure 16.5: Lithicmaterial recovered fromVetar Bay (Photo:L. Beki)


9/17


OrudaTo the south of the small island of Oruda (Fig.16.1) west of Loinj, there is an islet, calledPalacol. During the investigation of a Post-Medieval wooden shipwreck in the summerof 2010 pottery sherds were discovered at adepth of c. 5 m. e location of the shipwreck

is c. 100 m south of Oruda and c. 50 m northof an unnamed rock protruding from thesea. About a dozen of the sherds (Fig. 16.6)are thought to be of a prehistoric origin, andtherefore unrelated to the shipwreck. Most ofthe ceramics were found directly on the seabed,and were abraded owing to the strong currentsat this location. ey are hand made, unevenlyfired, with crushed calcite temper. ree sherdsare from vessels with a wide, rounded body, ahorizontal, nearly straight, cylindrical neck, and avery slightly everted rim (Fig. 16.6, 1, 3) or non-everted, straight rim (Fig. 16.6, 4). One potsherd(not illustrated) has no calcite temper, but isalso likely to be prehistoric. None of the sherdsbears traces of ornamentation. Typologically,the sherds are typical of the Copper Age in the

Istria and Kvarner regions. e best-preserpiece (Fig. 16.6, 1) was excavated with a drefrom underneath the shipwreck an indicathat there may be other well-preserved artefin the seabed sediments. Some 30 m to the west of the shipwa linear stone feature, approximately 10 m

length, protrudes from the sandy seabed. Gits depth below sea level this is also likely toprehistoric, perhaps the remains of a walcauseway between Oruda and the rock tosouth.

Zadaribenik (Stipanac)Brusi (1977) reported the first underwater fiof prehistoric artefacts along the east Adrcoast in a publication that focused primaon later material. He described the resultunderwater surveys along the coast betwZadar and ibenik in central Dalmatia (16.1). Prehistoric pottery and chipped startefacts were recovered from the seabed, usuin close proximity to islets just offshore, althofew details of the finds or their contexts

Figure 16.6: Prehistoricceramics found nearOruda (Photo: L. Beki)


10/17


available. A series of chert artefacts found onthe seabed near Stipanac islet were identified byBrusi (1977) as Palaeolithic, and more preciselyby Malez (1979) as Mousterian. However, thesechronological interpretations cannot be verifiedon the basis of the published descriptions orillustrations (Fig. 16.7).

Baka VodaIn 2002 non-archaeological divers recovered asmall group of lithics from the seabed near theDalmatian coastal town of Baka Voda (Fig.16.1). e objects were discovered when effortsto dislodge a boat that had run aground in theharbour resulted in a trench some 3040 cmdeep in the seabed. e find spot was recordedas approximately 50 m from the shore (nowa harbour wall), roughly in the centre of theharbour. e lithics are reported to have beenfound at a depth of c. 56 m (T. Jurii, pers.comm. 2009), but no information is available ontheir geological context thus, it is not knownif, prior to disturbance, they lay in the reworkedsediment on the seabed or were stratified inan older, pre-transgression deposit. ey werereportedly found together as a group, and show nosigns of natural abrasion caused by stream or waveaction. Whilst this might suggest they were in situor had not moved far from their original place ofdeposition, it does not exclude the possibility thatthey were redeposited in containing sedimentsduring harbour construction or operations.

Another possibility is that the lithics wereintentionally deposited in the sea, either as refuseor as a ritual act. Some sherds of Roman potterywere also found in the vicinity, but where theseoccurred in relation to the lithics and whether theywere deposited at the same time, which wouldimply secondary deposition of all the material,is not known. Of the six lithic pieces recovered, five are nowhoused in a private collection in Baka Voda,where they were examined and photographed byJonathan Benjamin (Fig. 16.8). ey comprisetwo prismatic blades, an amorphous core, a

fragment of a ground-edge implement, and anunworked chert chunk. e longer blade (Fig.16.8, 1ad) is c. 19 cm long, tapers to a point,and is made of reddish-brown chert. ere islight retouch along the distal half of one edge,resulting in a slightly denticulated edge outline.Both lateral edges show slight rounding probablycaused by use or hafting since the dorsal ridgesare sharp. is piece may have served as a knife

blade. e shorter of the two blades (Fig. 16.8,3ab) is made of a fine-grained siliceous rock(tentatively identified as quartzite). e dorsalridges are sharp but both lateral edges arerounded, probably by use. e ground-edge tool(Fig. 16.8, 2ac) is a fragment of an axe-headmade from grey-brown chert. e core (Fig.

16.8, 4ac) is an irregular fragment of yellowish-brown chert, exhibiting scars left by several flakeremovals. e date of the lithic finds from Baka Vodaharbour is uncertain, but the prismatic bladesand the ground-edge tool can be paralleled inNeolithic or Chalcolithic sites along the east

Figure 16.7: Lithicartefacts from the seabednear Stipanac islet,central Dalmatia (AfterBrusi 1977: fig. 15)


11/17


Adriatic seaboard (cf. Mihovili 1992; eukand Radi 2005; Marijanovi 2005; Brusi2008).

Research in prospect

e preceding review of underwater prehistoricfinds from the eastern Adriatic shows that most

discoveries have been made in fairly shallow w(


12/17


et al. 1993; Mleku et al. 2008), have led someauthors to suggest that demographic expansionof farming populations from the Aegean orsouthern Balkans was the dominant mechanism,with adoption of agricultural practices bylocal (Mesolithic) hunter-gatherers playingonly a minor role. A popular theory envisages

pioneer leapfrog colonization along the coastand subsequent infiltration of the hinterland(Forenbaher and Miracle 2005). Current ideas about the origins of the Neolithicof the eastern Adriatic littoral inevitably derivefrom land-based research. However, the spread offarming through the region took place when sealevel was significantly lower than today; hencethe coastal margins of the landscape occupied bythe first farmers and their Mesolithic predecessorsare now largely submerged. Any detailed invest-igation of these submerged landscapes requiresunderwater exploration, and there are twoimportant questions with a critical bearing oncurrent perceptions of the transition to farming inthe Adriatic region, which will only be adequatelyaddressed through underwater archaeology:

1. Were Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithicpopulations concentrated along the nowsubmerged coastline?

2. What role did seafaring and coastal resourcesplay in the lives of the last hunter-gatherers andfirst farmers of the region?

Establishing research priorities: where to look?

e critical period is between 7000 and 5500cal BC. Sites with Impressed Ware pottery

and evidence of stockraising and/or cultivationare found in northwest Greece and westernAlbania before 6000 cal BC (Sordinas 1967,1969; Schuldenrein 1998). Permanent farmingsettlements were established in the Zadar regionof Croatia by 5900 cal BC (Moore et al. 2007,in press), although Neolithic sites are not known

from the Trieste Bay area at the head of theAdriatic before c. 5600 cal BC (Biagi et al. 2008;Mleku et al. 2008). Data for the northeast Adriatic (Fig. 16.9)suggest that relative sea level rose from c. 27to 13.5 m between 7000 and 5500 cal BC.is serves as a rough guide to the possiblelocations of shore-related sites belonging tothe Final Mesolithic to Early Neolithic timerange, and provides a benchmark for futureunderwater surveys. Such depths are accessibleto archaeological divers using standard scubaequipment and compressed air. Post-transgression sedimentation will alsoimpact on the prospects for underwater sitediscovery. Rivers draining the Trieste Flysch,which comprises interbedded sandstones andmarlstones of Eocene age, have depositedlarge amounts of sediment in the northernAdriatic basin and, locally, along the northerncoast of Istria, sedimentation rates during theHolocene have been quite high. e averagerate of sediment accumulation in Piran Bayhas been estimated at 3 mm/year (Ogrinc et al.2005) and similar rates may apply in the inner

bays of Koper and Trieste. It follows that anyshore-related sites in these areas dating to the

Figure 16.9: PredictedHolocene sea-level curve

for Brijuni, northwestCroatia, in relation to tregional archaeologicalchronology. e solid linrepresents the eustaticchange (After Antonioliet al. 2007). e dashedline is corrected fortectonic subsidenceaveraging 0.6 mm/year, estimated by Faivre et a(in press) for the period42 cal ka BP. EN EarlNeolithic, MN MiddleNeolithic, FN Final

Neolithic, EBA EarlyBronze Age, RSL relativsea-level. e altitudinapositions of the submergZambratija prehistoricsite and Y-Cave aremarked on the correctedcurve (Drawing:C. Bonsall)


13/17


Mesolithic and Neolithic might be quite deeplyburied. South of Piran, however, along the Istrian andDalmatian coasts, which are underlain by mainlycarbonate rocks, sedimentation rates are generallymuch lower. It follows that the prospects foridentifying archaeological finds or features on

or just below the seabed are significantly better it is hardly a coincidence that nearly all theprehistoric underwater finds to date have comefrom this part of the Adriatic.

Focus on the Zadar ArchipelagoAny study of a submerged landscape should bepreceded by familiarization with the geologyand geomorphology of the region, togetherwith a review of the existing archaeological andethnographic data (for discussion, see Benjamin2010). e region between Zadar and ibenik on theDalmatian mainland has some important StoneAge sites (Chapman et al. 1996; Forenbaherand Miracle 2005; Komo 2006). e Zadararchipelago with its hundreds of islands and isletscreated by the post-glacial marine transgression,therefore, seems an obvious place to beginthe search for submerged shore-related sitesbelonging to the MesolithicNeolithic transitionperiod. At 45 km long and 124 km2 in area, DugiOtok (Long Island) is one of the larger islands

in the archipelago. During the Last GlacialMaximum c. 20 ka BP, when sea level stoodat c. 120 m (Fairbanks 1989; Blanchonand Shaw 1995), Dugi Otok was a ridge ofhigh ground at the eastern edge of the nowsubmerged Adriatic Plain. It became an islandc. 12,000 BP/11,900 cal BC during the post-glacial marine transgression, evolving intoits present form as sea level continued to riseduring the Holocene. e island has not beenintensively researched archaeologically, butland-based reconnaissance surveys mainly inthe 1960s and 1970s produced archaeological

finds of various periods, some claimed to dateback to the Palaeolithic (Batovi 1993). Asmall test excavation in Vlakno Cave uncoveredevidence for the exploitation of marine resources(shellfish, crab, fish and octopus) during the EarlyMesolithic, c. 10,0009000 cal BC (Brusi 2005;Komo 2006). Dugi Otok is a promising target for underwatersurvey, because it has:

1. A settlement record extending back more 11,000 years.

2. A karstic landscape rich in caves, incluseveral known undersea caves.

3. A coastline with localized low wave energyvironments (straits and protected embaymeand generally low seabed sedimentation r

which increase the likelihood of underwarchaeological preservation and discovery.4. A productive marine environment that

been exploited since at least the beginninthe Holocene.

Of the undersea caves recorded arothe island, Y-Cave near Brbiica Cove (16.10) is the best documented. Geologdivers conducted a survey of the cave, noits potential for prehistoric human habita(Jurai et al. 2002). The cave entrancc. 6 m high, and the presence of speleoth(calcium carbonate deposits formed by action of water) suggests the former existeof a freshwater spring within the cave. Fsediments cover the cave floor, which suggminimal disturbance by wave and current actand there is an absence of rock debris that coimpede archaeological investigation. Moreothe orientation of the main passage is similathat of nearby Vlakno Cave (see above). Givedepth (12 m) below sea level, Y-Cave is unlito have been transgressed until after 5500 cal and so would have been available for humanduring the Mesolithic and, possibly, well into

Neolithic. Prehistoric peoples often made use of cfor economic or ritual purposes whilst livin open-air settlements (for discussion,Tolan-Smith and Bonsall 1997). Any stof the submerged prehistory of Dugi Otherefore, needs to include systematic surof palaeotopographic features within proteembayments, straits, and around river mou

Figure 16.10: e

daylight zone insideY-Cave, Dugi Otok. ecave entrance is c.6 mhigh. Submerged sea cavesare abundant along theDalmatian coast andrepresent a potentiallyimportant archaeologicalresource (Photo: J.Benjamin)


14/17


and promontories where open-air residentialsites, fishing camps, and fixed installations mighthave been located prior to submergence. Telaica is a large inlet at the southeastend of Dugi Otok, with numerous small bays,headlands, and islands (Fig. 16.11). Sea-levelrise data suggest the inlet came into being in the

Late Glacial and evolved through the Holoceneas sea level continued to rise. e inlet hasseveral characteristics that make it attractivefor underwater archaeological explorationaimed at identifying submerged Mesolithicand Neolithic sites. ese include: (i) evolvingshorelines and sheltered marine environmentsthat would have been accessible from the UpperPalaeolithic onwards; (ii) localized areas offertile soils in close proximity to the shoreline;(iii) a known concentration of prehistoric sitesat the head of the inlet (cf. Batovi 1993); (iv)numerous low wave energy environments with

high archaeological preservation potential; and(v) water depths that are easily accessible toarchaeological divers.

Research strategy and methodologyA systematic study of the submerged prehistoryof Dugi Otok would include the followingelements (cf. Benjamin 2010; see also Lbke etal. and Westley et al., this volume):

review and assessment of previous research(desk study);

familiarization with the regional geology,geomorphology, and hydrology;

ethnographic survey; mapping of the palaeolandscape and evaluating

its archaeological potential; palaeoenvironmental sampling; archaeological testing.

Several authors have stressed the importanceof using underwater archaeology to supplementthe (often eroded and weathered) record fromadjacent terrestrial sites (e.g. Wilkinson andMurphy 1986). It follows that an integratedapproach is desirable, in which the submergedlandscape research is preceded by an assessmentof the land-based evidence. Field inspection ofadjacent terrestrial sites, including topographicsurveys where these have not already been done,might aid interpretation of the submerged

landscape. On Dugi Otok, for example, anassessment of the topographic setting andarchaeological evidence from Vlakno Caveshould precede any archaeological investigationof the submerged Y-Cave. Research by Fischer (1993, 1995) in thewestern Baltic has demonstrated the value ofethnographic research in helping to identifysubmerged prehistoric sites (for further

Figure 16.11: Southeastfacing oblique satelliteimage showing thesheltered environments oTelaica Inlet on DugiOtok. Left: generalizedbathymetry. e inlet isapproximately 8 km lon

(Image Google Earth)


15/17


discussion see Benjamin 2010). Ethnographicinterviews with local fisherman on Dugi Otok,especially those elderly residents who practisedtraditional fishing methods before electricityand refrigeration were introduced to the islandaround 1960, are an essential prerequisite forany study of the submerged prehistory of the

island. e information gained regarding thespecies of fish and shellfish targeted, the captureand processing methods employed, and thelocations where particular activities were carriedout can inform the interpretation of previousarchaeological finds as well as underwater surveystrategy. Mapping of submerged landscape s canbe done at different scales and resolutions,with variable cost implications. One approachwould be to use the available (consumer grade)bathymetric charts for the waters around DugiOtok to provide basic, low-resolution data onthe topography of the broader palaeolandscape,followed by higher resolution studies of smallerareas like Telaica inlet and the environs of Y-cave, with the standard bathymetric data beingsupplemented by more sophisticated sonar ormarine-based LiDAR surveys. Bathymetric dataalone, however, can fail to detect small-scalelandscape features, such as palaeochannels,especially where these are infilled with marinesediments. Therefore, we would advocatethe use of sub-bottom profiling (where cost-effective) and/or corer/auger sampling in order

to provide geotechnical data and fine-tunepalaeotopographic reconstructions. e resultingpalaeolandscape record could then be usedto create a map of archaeological potentialhighlighting topographic features that may havebeen used by prehistoric people for settlementor subsistence-related activities, combined withan assessment of the potential for archaeologicalpreservation. Once the baseline data have been col-lected and analyzed, focused sampling forpalaeoenvironmental and archaeological evidencewould be conducted in high-priority locations.

Palaeoenvironmental sampling would be aimedat identifying biogenic or fossiliferous deposits(e.g. shell beds), and collecting samples forradiocarbon and environmental analysis. In caves,augering can also help to determine the extentof roof collapse, the likelihood of archaeologicaldiscovery based on sedimentation type, and thepresence of deposits likely to contain culturalmaterials. e data recovered may also contribute

to regional reconstructions of sea-level chaand coastal environments. Archaeological testwhich is partly dependent on water depth time constraints associated with scuba divmay encompass a variety of standard underwmethods ranging from simple hand fann(where seabed sediments are thin) to (man

or dredge-assisted) test-pitting.

Conclusions

Large areas around the Adriatic Basin that wonce settled by prehistoric populations hbeen submerged as a result of sea-level rise sthe Last Glacial Maximum. is chapter reviewed the current state of research intosubmerged prehistory of the eastern Adriaticoutlined the potential for larger-scale stuaimed at addressing major research question At least eight submerged sites or localwith prehistoric artefacts have been repoalong the east Adriatic coast between PiranSlovenia and Makarska in Croatia. In mcases the finds were made close to shorewater less than 5 m deep. Several sites contapottery and stone artefacts that indicate a LNeolithic to Bronze Age date, and it is lithe sites were located on or near the coast attime of their occupation. One site, ZambrCove in Istria, has well-preserved structremains and organic materials that offer possibility of high-resolution radiocarbon (

perhaps dendrochonological) dating. In tprecise dating of (potentially) shore-related like Zambratija, would contribute to a beunderstanding of relative sea-level change shoreline displacement during the Holocen Shore-related sites belonging to earprehistoric periods would lie at greater depths. On present evidence relative sea lrose from c. 27 to 13.5 m during the pebetween 7000 and 5500 cal BC, correspondto the Final Mesolithic and Early Neolithic,such depths are accessible with standard scequipment and compressed air. e transi

from Mesolithic to Neolithic is a crucial under-researched period in the prehistory ofeastern Adriatic, and there are important isrelating to the origins and spread of farminthe region that can only be addressed throsubmerged cultural landscape studies. We hpresented a research design for one such stfocused on Dugi Otok, a large island in the oZadar archipelago in northern Dalmatia.


16/17


By drawing attention to extant underwaterprehistoric finds and the prospects for moreextensive and systematic underwater research andsite discovery along the Istrian and Dalmatiancoasts, we hope to have demonstrated that theeastern Adriatic has considerable potential for thesurvival and investigation of submerged cultural

landscapes. We suggest the archaeologicalexploration of these palaeolandscapes shouldbe given a high priority, since it could havea profound impact on our understanding ofthe prehistory of the Adriatic basin and, byextension, the wider Mediterranean.

Acknowledgements

We thank Krunoslav Zubi for informationabout the material at Baka Voda, SmiljanGluevi for the information relating to Y-Cave, Andrej Gaspari and Matija renar fortheir help in the field in Slovenia (and beyond),Fabrizio Antonioli for information aboutHolocene sea-levels, and Stao Forenbaher forinformative discussions about the neolithizationof the eastern Adriatic. We are grateful to ToniJurii and Miroslav Kati for permission tophotograph and publish the material in theBaka Voda collection, and to Igor Mihajlovi forpermission to photograph and publish finds fromhis underwater excavation near Oruda. BarbaraOluji and Lara Day Benjamin are thanked fortheir help with translations, and Andrew Bicketfor GIS support. We also thank three anonymouspeer reviewers for their constructive commentson a previous version of this chapter.

References

Antonioli, F., Anzidei, M., Lambeck, K., Auriemma,R., Gaddi, D., Furlani, S., Orru, P., Solinas, E.,Gaspari, A., Karinja, S., Kovai, V. and Surace,L. 2007. Sea-level change during the Holocenein Sardinia and in the northeastern Adriatic(central Mediterranean Sea) from archaeologicaland geomorphological data. Quaternary ScienceReviews26: 24632486.

Batovi, S. 1993. O Prapovijesti Dugoga Otoka.Zadarska Smotra. Matica Hrvatska Ogranak UZadru Godina XLII, Broj12: 99158.

Beki, L. 1996. Sustav gradina na rovinjskompodruju. Histria Archaeologica27: 1992.

Beki, L. 2001. Rimski i bizantski novac iz Vetra.Vjesnik Arheolokog Muzeja u Zagrebu 34: 169180.

Beki, L. (ed.) 2009a. Juriiev Zbornik. ZbornikRadova u Znak Sjeanja na Marija Juriia

[Festschrift for Mario Jurii]. Zagreb, CroatianConservation Institute.

Beki, L. 2009b. Struno izvjee o arheolokomistraivanju nalazita RovinjVetar 2009.g [Expertreport on archaeological research at the site ofRovinjVetar 2009]. Unpublished field report onfile at the Croatian Ministry of Culture, Zagreb.

Benjamin, J. 2007. e Submerged Prehistory of Europe:

A Methodological Approach to Underwater SiteDiscovery with Special Reference to the Mesolithicand Neolithic of the Eastern Adriatic. UnpublishedPhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.

Benjamin, J. 2010. Submerged prehistoric landscapesand underwater site discovery: reevaluating theDanish model for international practice.Journalof Island and Coastal Archaeology 5: 253270.

Benjamin, J. and Bonsall, C. 2009a. An underwaterarchaeological survey in the northern AdriaticSea. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology38: 163172.

Benjamin, J. and Bonsall, C. 2009b. e prehistoricchert dagger from Piran, Slovenia: an underwaterfind from the northern Adriatic.Arheoloki vestnik60: 5764.

Bernardini, F., De Min, A., Demarchi, G., MontagnariKokelj, E., Veluek, A. and Komo, D. 2009.Shaft-hole axes from Slovenia and north-westernCroatia: a first archaeometric study on artefactsmanufactured from meta-dolerites. Archaeometry51: 894912.

Biagi, P., Starnini, E. and Voytek, B. A. 1993. eLate Mesolithic and Early Neolithic settlementof northern Italy: recent considerations. Poroiloo Raziskovanju Paleolita, Neolita in Eneolita vSloveniji21: 4567.

Biagi, P., Starnini, E. and Voytek, B. A. 2008. eMesolithicNeolithic transition in the Trieste Karst

(north-eastern Italy) as seen from the excavations atthe Edera Cave. In Bonsall, C., Boroneant, V. andRadovanovic, I. (eds) e Iron Gates in Prehistory:New Perspectives. BAR International Series 1893.Oxford, Archaeopress: 251260.

Blanchon, P. and Shaw, J. 1995. Reef drowning duringthe Last Glaciation: evidence for catastrophic sea-level rise and ice sheet collapse. Geology23: 48.

Brusi, Z. 1977. Prehistorijski podmorski nalazina podruju june Liburnije. Radovi CentraJugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti uZadru.Sv24: 5360.

Brusi, Z. 2005. Peina Vlakno [Vlakno Cave].Hrvatski Arheoloki Godinjak 1(2004): 197199.

Brusi, Z. 2008. Pokrovnik, Naselje iz Neolitika.ibenik, Muzej grada ibenika.

euk, B. and Radi, D. 2005. Vela Spila, A StratifiedPrehistoric Site. Vela Luka Island of Korula(Croatia). Vela Luka, Centar za kulturu VelaLuka.

Chapman, J. C., Shiel, R. and Batovi, S. 1996. eChanging Face of Dalmatia: Archaeological andEcological Studies in a Mediterranean Landscape.London, Society of Antiquaries.


17/17


Codacci, G. 2002. Il sito neolitico di Viula: Analisitipologica dellindustria litica. Histria Archaeologica33: 143194. Pula.

Fairbanks, R. G. 1989. A 17,000-year glacio-eustaticsea level record: influence of glacial melting rateson the Younger Dryas event and deep-oceancirculation. Nature342: 637642.

Faivre, S., Fouache, E., Ghilardi, M., Antonioli, F.,

Furlani, S. and Kovai, V. In press. Relative sealevel change in western Istria (Croatia) duringthe last millennium. Quaternary International.

Available online 11 June 2010.Fischer, A. 1993. Stenalderbopladser i Smlands-

farvandet. En teori afprvet ved dykkerbesigtigelse[Stone Age Settlements in the Smland Bight. Aeory Tested by Diving]. Copenhagen, Skov- ogNaturstyrelsen.

Fischer, A. 1995. An entrance to the Mesolithic worldbelow the ocean. Status of ten years work on theDanish sea floor. In Fischer, A. (ed.)Man and Sea inthe Mesolithic. Coastal Settlement Above and BelowPresent Sea Level. Oxford, Oxbow: 371384.

Forenbaher, S. and Miracle, P. 2005. e spread offarming in the eastern Adriatic. Antiquity, 79:514528.

Forenbaher, S. and Nikitovi, D. 2007. Neolitikeizraevine od cijepanog kamena iz Vele pei kodVrane (Istra). Histria Archaeologica3839: 535.

Jarvis A., Reuter, H. I., Nelson, A. and Guevara,E. 2008. Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4,International Centre for Tropical Agriculture(CIAT), http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org

Jurai M., Bakran-Petricioli T. and Petricioli, D.2002. Cessation of karstification due to thesea-level rise? Case study of the Y-cave, DugiOtok, Croatia. In Gabrovek F. (ed.) Evolutionof Karst: From Prekarst to Cessation. Proceedings

of the International Symposium; 2002 Sep 1721;Postojna, Slovenija. Ljubljana, Zaloba ZRC:319326.

Jurii, M. 2000.Ancient Shipwrecks of the Adriatic.BARInternational Series 828. Oxford, Archaeopress.

Komo, D. 2004. Vrevan nalazite na otvorenomiz razdoblja ranog neolitika, Histria Archaeologica35: 530.

Komo, D. 2006. Mezolitik u hrvatskoj [TheMesolithic in Croatia]. Opvscula Archaeologica30: 5592.

Komo, D. 2008. Limski kanal. Hrvatski ArheolokiGodinjak4(2007): 264268.

Komo, D., Andreasen, N. H. and Forenbaher,S. 2009. Les premiers agriculteurs, pasteurs etpcheurs en Istrie (Croatie) travers les industrieslithiques. In Kourtessi-Philippakis, G. (ed.)La Prhistoire du Sud-Est Europen: Traditionset Innovations. Paris, Association Pierre Belon:125143.

Koncani Uha, I. 2009. Podvodna arheolokaistraivanja u uvali Zambratija, Histria Antiqua17: 263268.

Lambeck, K., Antonioli, F., Purcello, A. and Silenzi,S. 2004. Sea-level change along the Italian coast

for the past 10,000 yr. Quaternary Science Rev23: 15671598.

Malez, M. 1979. Nalazita paleolitskog i mezolitdoba u Hrvatskoj. In Basler, . (ed.) PraistJugoslavenskih Zemalja Paleolit i Mezolit. SarajCentar za balkanoloka ispitivanja: 227276

Marijanovi, B. 2005. Gudnja Vieslojno PrapovijNalazite. Dubrovnik, Dubrovaki muzeji.

Mihovili, K. 1992. Bay of Veruda Pula. Site of sobjects. Poroilo o Raziskovanju Paleolita, Nein Eneolita v Sloveniji20: 8793.

Mleku, D., Budja, M., Payton, R. W. and BonC. 2008. Mind the gap. Caves, radiocarsequences, and the MesolithicNeolithic transin Europe lessons from the Mala Triglrockshelter site. Geoarchaeology: An Internatjournal23: 398416.

Moore, A., Menui, M., Smith, J. and Podrug2007. Project Early Farming in Dalmatia: DaBitinj 20042005. Vjesnik Arheolokog MuzeZagrebu40: 1524.

Moore, A., Menui, M., Podrug, E. and ZaninovIn press. e inception of farming as a transformprocess: initial results from new excavationDanilo and Pokrovnik in Dalmatia. In BD. and Gurova, M. (eds) Identities of the ENeolithic Balkans. Oxford, Oxbow.

Ogrinc, N., Fontolan, G., Faganeli, J. and Covel2005. Carbon and nitrogen isotope compositof organic matter in coastal marine sedim(the Gulf of Trieste, N Adriatic Sea): indicaof sources and preservation. Marine Chem95: 163181.

Pellegatti, P. 2009. Hunter-gatherers of the IsPeninsula: the value of lithic raw material anato study small-scale colonization processesMcCartan, S., Schulting, R., Warren, G.

Woodman, P. (eds) Mesolithic Horizons: PPresented at the Seventh International Conferon the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005. Vol1. Oxford, Oxbow: 4552.

Radi Rossi, I., Gaspari, A. and Pydyn, A. (eds) 2Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the EuroAssociation of Archaeologists (Zadar, Croatia, 18September 2007). Session: Underwater ArchaeoZagreb, Hrvatsko arheoloko drutvo.

Schuldenrein, J. 1998. Konispol Cave, southAlbania, and correlations with other Aegean coccupied in the late Quaternary. GeoarchaeoAn International Journal13: 501526.

Sordinas, A. 1967. Radiocarbon dates from CoGreece.Antiquity51: 64.

Sordinas, A. 1969. Investigations of the prehisof Corfu during 19641966. Balkan Studies393424.

Tolan-Smith, C. and Bonsall, C. (eds) 1997.Human Use of Caves. BAR International S667. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Wilkinson, T. J. and Murphy, P. 1986. Archaeolosurvey of an intertidal zone: the submelandscape of the Essex coast, England. JournField Archaeology13: 177194.

Documents

Chap 16 Benjamin Pp. 193-206-Libre